Manage your subscription

Talking Point: Let chemistry look after its own

30 November 1991

By JOHN EMSLEY

A subversive thought: the chemicals and drugs industries should pay
for university research in chemistry. What’s so subversive about that? Only
that if the principle were applied to other sciences, some rather fat cats
would be in for a lean time. However, I believe that chemistry is a special
case. Let me justify this by linking it to a broader issue, the coming reorganisation
of university chemistry departments.

Consider the current situation. The chemicals industry is in recession,
but still has an annual turnover of around £25 billion. Our pharmaceuticals
giants are equally active with products in the world’s top ten drugs. Both
of these industries still deliver a massive balance of payments surplus.
They are largely staffed by chemists who have graduated from the chemistry
departments of British universities. It seems strange, then, to find such
departments badly equipped, run down and even closing down.

My subversiveness was prompted by the bit of the Queen’s Speech on higher
education in which she outlined the government’s plan to turn polytechnics
into universities. In 1979, there were 54 university chemistry departments;
today there are 41. By April 1993, there will be over 60 if the education
secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has his way. A general election might intervene,
but we must assume that unification of higher education will go ahead anyway.
It offers us as chemists a last opportunity to revitalise our science.

When the university and polytechnic systems are merged, all chemistry
departments will be judged by the same standards. At present, university
departments range from half a dozen of world-class standard to some that
are marked for closure due to lack of students and funds. Yet all award
PhD degrees, which implies a well-resourced research base. Among the polytechnics
some departments have flourishing research groups, but most teach only to
BSc level.

Advertisement

The problem of overlap was tackled once before. In the 1960s several
of what were then called Colleges of Advanced Technology, were upgraded
to universities, such as Bradford, Surrey and Aston. The others became polytechnics.
Over the following 25 years, however, they have raised their status and
prepared themselves for the marriage they knew would come eventually. They
developed a parallel funding council and admissions system, similar to the
University Funding Council and the Universities Central Council on Admissions.

Last week, Kenneth Clark confirmed the appointment of Ron Dearing to
be chairman of the new joint Higher Education Funding Council. It will fall
to the HEFC to grasp the nettle that the UFC feared to pluck. One of its
first jobs will be to deal with the pressing problem of closing chemistry
departments. And to do this it will need to draw up a league table of the
60 or so departments under its care.

Presumably it will rank them according to a tally of staff and student
numbers, the quality of degrees awarded, research activity and income, and
published papers. It could then allow only the top quarter, the first division,
to do research and award PhDs. Those in the second division would teach
to BSc level, those in the third would teach chemistry only as a support
subject for other sciences, such as medicine. And those in the fourth division
would close. Problem solved.

Well it would be, if the equipment and funding now given to the third
and fourth divisions were transferred to support research in the first division.
Past experience, however, suggests that money would be lost to the system.
The two federal universities in Britain, those of London and Wales, have
already closed several chemistry departments. In the 1980s, London reduced
its 10 chemistry departments to 5, and Wales reduced its 5 to 3. Staff were
rehoused, equipment moved and a lot of money was saved; but somehow the
departments which survived are not much better off.

Chemistry is expensive to teach and research. It will always appear
to be a burden on any education budget. For this reason, I believe its funding
must be removed from the national educational account. Chemistry is a special
case, because our chemicals industry is at risk. It is fighting tough competition
from the US, Germany, France and Japan. Which brings me back to the heresy
– let industry finance chemistry research in universities. Curiously the
chemicals industry already gives more to chemistry departments than the
Science and Engineering Research Council. I believe it could pay for it
all.

If the chemistry community agreed to have only 15 research departments,
we would have to be guaranteed that all would be raised to world-class standard.
Each would need a budget of around £7 million a year to allow them
to refurbish with modern equipment and to support about 75 PhD students.
A 5 per cent surcharge on the profits of chemicals companies would be more
than enough to pay for this, and it need cost the companies nothing if this
charge were to be deducted from the vast taxes they pay.

The Treasury could hardly object, since it would claw most of this money
back from the education and research council budgets. And if this plan seems
too risky and susceptible to the vagaries of declining profits in a recession,
perhaps an alternative source of revenue should be tapped. How about a levy
of 20p per barrel levy on the 650 million barrels of oil taken from the
North Sea each year? This would work out at 0.5 pence per gallon, hardly
noticeable, and in this case the money could be raised as part of the general
tax on motor fuel. Would the public baulk at this extra burden? I think
not.

Every time we use plastics, fabrics, paints and dyes, or take a healing
drug, we reap the benefits of research by British chemists of the past.
We appreciate that our health, and that of our children and grandchildren,
will depend on the next generation of chemists making better materials and
finding cures for diseases like cancer, AIDS and Alzheimer’s. You may have
your own subversive thought at this point: These discoveries will one day
be made somewhere, if not in Britain, so why worry?

This is true of course. Britain once made ships, motorbikes, lorries,
radios, televisions, washers, fridges, zips and pans . . . and what’s so
special about paints, plastics, pills, dyes, and detergents? Now that really
is a subversive thought.

John Emsley is science writer in residence and a reader in inorganic
chemistry at Imperial College, London.